View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


Proceedings had and testimony taken in the matters of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, at City of Novi, 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, Monday, November 5, 2007.

Timothy Shroyer, Chairman
Justin Fischer, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Bauer
Brent Canup
Linda Krieger
Mav Sanghvi

Thomas Schultz, City Attorney
Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development
Robin Working, ZBA Recording Secretary

Mona L. Talton, Certified Shorthand Reporter.


1 Novi, Michigan

2 Monday, November 5, 2007

3 7:30 p.m.

4 - - - - - -


6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Call the meeting to

7 order. We're going to call the meeting to

8 order. It says 8:30 on the wall but it's

9 actually 7:30.

10 So, Robin, would you please call the

11 roll for attendance.

12 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?

13 MEMBER BAUER: Present.

14 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


18 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


20 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


24 MS. WORKING: Member Wrobel?



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Absent excused.

2 All right, at this time if Member

3 Canup would please lead us in the Pledge of

4 Allegiance.

5 MEMBER CANUP: I pledge allegiance to

6 the flag of the United States of America and

7 to the Republic for which it stands, one

8 nation under God indivisible with liberty

9 and justice for all.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

11 Canup. If you would, Vice-Chair, would you

12 please read the rules of conduct for this

13 evening.


15 Chair.

16 Please note you can find a copy of all

17 the rules of conduct on the front page of

18 the agenda tonight. Please be sure to turn

19 off all pagers and cell phones during the

20 meeting. An applicant or representative

21 will be asked to come forth, state their

22 name and address and be sworn in by our

23 Secretary. Applicants will be allowed five

24 minutes to address the Board to present



1 their case. An extension of time may be

2 granted at the discretion of the

3 Chairperson.

4 Anyone in the audience who wishes to

5 address the Board regarding the current case

6 will be asked by the Chairperson to raise

7 their hands and be recognized. Once

8 recognized the audience members addressing

9 the Board will be sworn in and given three

10 minutes to speak if speaking on behalf of an

11 individual or ten minutes if representing a

12 group.

13 Members of the audience will be

14 allowed to address the Board once unless

15 directly questioned by the Board or the

16 Chairperson.

17 The Secretary will read the

18 number of public meeting -- public hearing

19 notices mailed pertaining to each case. An

20 objection and approval responses will be put

21 into the record. The Chair will ask for

22 input from the Community Development

23 Department, Ordinance Enforcement Officer,

24 Planning Department and the City attorney.



1 The Chairperson will then turn the

2 case over to the Board for discussion,

3 clarification, questions and entertainment

4 of a motion.

5 Impromptu statements from the audience

6 during the discussion by the Board or at any

7 time will be considered out of order and

8 will not be tolerated. A roll vote will be

9 taken to approve or deny the motion on the

10 table and the next case will be called.

11 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. The

13 Zoning Board of Appeals is a Hearing Board

14 empowered by the Novi City Charter to hear

15 appeals seeking variances from the

16 application of Novi Zoning Ordinances. It

17 takes a vote of at least four members to

18 approve a variance request and a vote of the

19 majority present to deny a request.

20 The Board consist of seven regular

21 members and one alternate member. The

22 alternate member has the right to

23 participate in all Board discussions and

24 hearings, but may not vote except in the



1 absence or abstention of a regular Board

2 member.

3 We do have a shortage on the Board

4 currently. Our alternate member is in

5 position to vote this evening. We do have a

6 quorum, so it is an official meeting.

7 The meeting is of the Monday, November

8 5th, 2007 regular meeting Zoning Board of

9 Appeals for the City of Novi.

10 At this time is there any additions or

11 corrections to the agenda?

12 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer, I

13 would like to add the approval of the

14 October 9th, 2007 ZBA Minutes to the agenda.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Any

16 other changes, additions? Entertain a

17 motion for approval?

18 MEMBER SANGHVI: So moved.

19 MEMBER BAUER: So moved.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's been approved

21 -- motion for approval as amended.

22 All those in favor say aye?


24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Opposed same sign.



1 Okay, we have an agenda.

2 At this time I will open up the

3 meeting for comments from the public. Is

4 there anyone in the audience that cares to

5 --

6 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, one thing.


8 MR. SCHULTZ: We do have a member

9 missing, Member Wrobel, who is sort of the

10 Planning Commission delegate. Member

11 Krieger is sitting as the alternate

12 typically for Mr. Gatt whose position we

13 haven't filled yet. Typically you ask the

14 proponent, it's just presumably a formality

15 at this point with this proponent, but to

16 make sure that they are okay with proceeding

17 without a full seven member board. You may

18 want to make that inquiry.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have made it a

20 policy of the Board in the past to offer

21 that to our Applicants. We do not have a

22 full Board. Is it your wish to proceed?

23 MR. SMITH: It is, Mr. Chairman.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: The Applicant has



1 indicated that he does wish to proceed.

2 Now, is there anyone in the audience

3 who cares to speak in front of the ZBA?

4 Seeing none.

5 What we're going to do this evening is

6 I am going to ask for, I should say, brief

7 opening comments from the City attorney or

8 staff and then brief opening comments from

9 the Applicant. Then we will request a

10 presentation from staff and then a

11 presentation from the Applicant.

12 So at this time do we have opening

13 comments from staff or attorney?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

15 Just very briefly, sort of an overview as to

16 how we got here tonight. This is the second

17 proceeding, the original hearing including

18 the public hearing portion of the case was

19 heard on September 11th and was tabled.

20 There was a request by the Board for

21 materials from City staff in response to the

22 materials submitted along with the

23 application and subsequent to the initial

24 application by the Applicant. Those



1 documents were provided to the Board on

2 October 4th. There was a tabling then at

3 the request of the Applicant to tonight's

4 meeting which is a regular meeting for

5 November.

6 So that's kind of the background. We

7 have now on Friday got an additional

8 submission from the Applicant which I

9 believe everybody got delivered on Friday,

10 whether they got to it or not. We don't

11 have a specific response prepared for that.

12 Certainly not from my office and I don't

13 believe any of the consultants have

14 submitted anything either.

15 One thing I do have, though, is a

16 brief letter that was at your place or was

17 hopefully transmitted to you during the day

18 today in response to two things in Mr.

19 Smith's Friday letter.

20 The first comment I guess relates to

21 the suggestion in Mr. Smith's memorandum

22 that somehow the City staff or City

23 Attorney's office has stepped out of its

24 usual role here and become an advocate. The



1 letter explains that from our perspective we

2 did what the Board requested, provided

3 additional information in sort of the normal

4 course that we would take with that kind of

5 a request.

6 The other item, though, was

7 essentially an agreement with Mr. Smith in

8 the first part of his memorandum. He

9 reminds the Board that you are, indeed, an

10 independent Body and make up your own mind

11 based on upon all of the information you get

12 from the public, from the Applicant, the

13 staff. None of us make the decision for

14 you. You evaluate independently and are

15 obligated to make whatever decision you

16 believe is appropriate based upon that

17 information considered in total.

18 I am hoping I didn't need to remind

19 you of that, but just to make clear I wanted

20 to have something in writing as well echoing

21 in a sense what Mr. Smith put in his

22 memorandum.

23 So that's all I have for the City's

24 presentation.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. I did

2 neglect to review the October 9th, meeting

3 Minutes, so at this time I will regress

4 slightly and look at our October 9th

5 Minutes. Is there any corrections or

6 additions to the Minutes?


8 approve as submitted.


10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I have a motion by

11 Vice-Chair Fischer and a second by Member

12 Sanghvi.

13 All in favor say aye?


15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All opposed same

16 sign? The Minutes have been approved.

17 Sorry for the delay with that.


18 Is the Applicant prepared to make a

19 brief statement at this time?

20 MR. SMITH: I think I'll withhold the

21 statement, Mr. Chairman, with your

22 permission and just make a presentation.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, that's fine.




1 order, Mr. Chair. Are we going to him or

2 the City staff next?


4 MR. SCHULTZ: Just so we're clear, the

5 only presentation I think is going to come

6 from the planning staff. Here present in

7 the audience, though, are Robin Royal (ph)

8 from Berchill, Royal (ph), the planning

9 consultant and Dan Tomlinson from Stout,

10 Risius, Ross. Hopefully those consultants

11 prepared reports that were in the city's

12 materials. They are also additional people,

13 Karen Reinowski and Kristin Kapelanski from

14 the Planning Department here essentially as

15 a resource for the Board.


17 available for our questions later. Thank

18 you.

19 Ms. McBeth, are you prepared to make a

20 presentation?

21 MS. McBETH: Thank you. I am. I

22 wanted to go over just briefly the five

23 reports that the Planning Review Center

24 provided for the Zoning Board of Appeals'



1 consideration.

2 We have provided the five reports kind

3 of in keeping with the idea that the

4 Applicant made a number of points and we

5 were trying to answer those as briefly and

6 succinctly as we could.

7 The first report related to master

8 plan and zoning and is similar to other

9 reports that this Board has seen. It

10 provided some general property

11 characteristics of the subject site

12 including the site size, the zoning and the

13 land uses for the site and the surrounding

14 properties.

15 The master plan for land use section

16 of that report provided some historical

17 information regarding master plan

18 recommendations for the property over the

19 years. We found that most of the master

20 plans that had been approved over the years

21 recommended either industrial or light

22 industrial uses for the property.

23 Our report also noted that the 2004 master

24 plan for land use recommended a Downtown



1 West designation for the subject property

2 and surrounding areas with additional study

3 recommended for that area.

4 The master plan for land use as you

5 know is currently under review for this

6 particular area as well as two other areas

7 within the community and we are expecting

8 that that will be completed some time near

9 the beginning of the year.

10 The report also continued by providing

11 some additional description of the uses

12 permitted in the Expo District including

13 Exposition facilities as well as additional

14 uses that are permitted in conjunction with

15 an Exposition Center. Certain light

16 industrial uses are also permitted in the

17 Expo District provided that there is no

18 exposition use on the property.

19 The second report was really a

20 comparison of Trade Centers and Exposition

21 Centers and we started with one of the

22 stated intents of the Expo District is that

23 it be designed to accommodate the

24 development of a planned Exposition facility



1 including exhibit halls. Our Department

2 looked into the standard definitions for

3 Exposition facilities and exhibits for

4 further clarity into the meaning of those

5 words that are found in the Ordinance. And

6 we also found some definitions from the

7 Convention Industry Council for how those

8 words are utilized in that industry.

9 That second report also contains some

10 research on two local Trade Centers, the

11 Gibraltar Trade Centers, one of those is in

12 Taylor and the other is in Mount Clements.

13 There was also a small sampling of

14 Exposition centers around the country and

15 locally including the Rock Financial

16 Showplace. Some analysis and comparison was

17 done by the Community Development Department

18 for information for the ZBA for those uses.

19 The third report really discussed was

20 in answer to the Applicant's suggestion that

21 the City Zoning Ordinance is attempting to

22 exclude an otherwise legitimate use. And as

23 we noted our earlier opinion based on the

24 information supplied by the Applicant and it



1 remains our opinion that the proposed use is

2 purely a very intense retail use.

3 We note that there is a myriad of Novi

4 Zoning Districts that allow retail uses.

5 These districts allowing retail uses are

6 provided throughout the community and as

7 recommended by the master plan for land use.

8 We also noted that there is an Ordinance

9 provision that addresses unlisted uses and

10 that is a reminder for the ZBA that there is

11 a set of procedures out there, if there was

12 a use that it was overlooked and not

13 included in the Ordinance or the set of

14 procedures for addressing that.

15 The fourth report was regarding the

16 Applicant's comments regarding the internal

17 and external similarities and differences

18 between the proposed uses of the Novi Trade

19 Center and the previous uses of Novi Expo

20 Center. Just briefly some of the

21 differences noted is that there would be a

22 reduction in available parking for the

23 building based on the plan that was

24 submitted by the Applicant.



1 There appears to be a reduction from

2 two points of access to one point of access

3 to the main road system in the area as well

4 as a number of other modifications from the

5 approved site plan. The internal

6 differences were identified by reviewing the

7 2003 events that were held at the Novi Expo

8 Center as compared to the events proposed

9 for the Novi Trade Center. Several

10 differences that we noted included the

11 average length of the events, the number of

12 event halls that were used for the events

13 and the variety of events as well as the

14 perceived flexibility of the floor plan

15 within the building.

16 The final report related to the use

17 variance request. We cited the section of

18 the Ordinance in which a use variance can be

19 sought. The ZBA may consider use variances

20 only in cases where the Applicant shows

21 undue hardship exist through evidence of all

22 of the four standards provided in the

23 Ordinance.

24 I can discuss this in greater detail



1 if you would like, but just to summarize,

2 it's the opinion of our Department that the

3 Applicant has not demonstrated for the

4 official record that undue hardship exist

5 sufficient for the ZBA to grant a use

6 variance that meets all four standards of

7 the Ordinance.

8 Finally, we just provided some maps so

9 that you could identify where the property

10 was and the surrounding properties.

11 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. It

13 looks like that we're at a point where we're

14 ready for a presentation from the Applicant.

15 MR. SMITH: I told Kevin to be sure

16 that I moved that thing out of the way or I

17 would hurt myself getting up. It's been a

18 long time since I have sat in a class and

19 used those. A long time and many pounds

20 ago. My name is Scott Smith.

21 I'm with the law firm of Clark Hill and I'm

22 going to make a response tonight. With me

23 are Ralph Lametti (ph), the Trustee of the

24 Trust that owns the property. And Kevin



1 Adell who would be operating the Novi Trade

2 Center as well as Dan McCleary (ph), and you

3 have an affidavit from him. Dan is from CB

4 Richard Ellis and is the person who spoke

5 about the inability to use that property for

6 any of the purposes that they're allowed

7 under the Industrial Zoning Ordinance. That

8 would be Sections 1901 and 1902, I believe,

9 of the Zoning Ordinance. And he is here if

10 you have some questions.

11 Beyond that, both we and the City's

12 representatives have filed significant

13 information. Probably more than you have

14 dealt with in most if not all of your ZBA

15 cases. Certainly more than I usually deal

16 with in a ZBA matter. It shows that we in

17 the City view things from a bit of a

18 different perspective. I am not going to

19 reiterate any of that information. It will

20 speak for itself.

21 Instead, you know, at the September

22 meeting, Member Sanghvi said that this won't

23 be a confrontational relationship. We're

24 assuming that reflects the Board's desires



1 and also wish to be here to problem solve.

2 Of course, we needed to file materials to

3 reasonably protect our legal position and

4 that forces us to focus on differences we

5 have with the City. That is not, however,

6 our desired approach. That's an approach I

7 had to take in filing things.

8 But I think we ought to look at this

9 site for the facts that are there. It's a

10 site with a building on it that's 40 years

11 old. Built in 1966, I believe. It's got

12 support columns that are 40 feet on center.

13 It's got 18 foot ceilings. It's a large

14 open undivided space. There are limited

15 truck wells and limited locations without

16 the space to add truck wells and other

17 locations. The main access is from a road

18 that suffers real traffic issues at peak

19 weekday traffic hours.

20 The renovation for accommodating other

21 uses was extensively reviewed by a

22 structural and civil engineer as Mr.

23 McCleary speaks of in his Affidavit and by a

24 commercial and industrial general



1 contractor. Cost of raising the roof to

2 make it higher for warehousing or industrial

3 kinds of uses is upwards of $40 a square

4 foot. Cost of subdividing it to accommodate

5 multiple smaller users, many of those uses

6 listed in Sections 1901 and 1902 such as R&D

7 uses and so forth are users who would use

8 somewhere between 5,000 and 30,000 square

9 feet. We would need to put in walls deck to

10 deck and accompanying reworking of the HVAC

11 system, fire suppression systems and

12 plumbing systems in the building, and that

13 too is cost prohibitive.

14 The cost of retrofitting the building

15 for any of the uses listed in Sections 1901

16 and 1902 are huge in comparison with the

17 possibility of any kind of marketability or

18 return on that investment. It would be an

19 upside down building with no possibility of

20 getting those costs back.

21 Quite frankly, the Michigan economy

22 has changed. The Michigan economy has

23 changed so that there is less need for

24 industrial buildings such as this and big



1 industrial spaces. Industrial jobs have

2 migrated out of the state. We're now

3 looking at a state that's focusing on a high

4 tech service economy and the kinds of things

5 for which this building and this site is

6 ill-suited.

7 We also looked at the possibility of

8 demolishing the building and marketing the

9 property, but Mr. McCleary has indicated

10 that there is not a huge market demand for

11 that property right now for any of the uses,

12 even if it were vacant for any of the uses

13 listed in Sections 1901 and 1902.

14 There are buildings throughout the

15 state that are abandoned, being leased at

16 losses and so forth. For example, there is

17 one building available on Schoolcraft Road

18 in Livonia in an industrial district. It's

19 got 17 acres with I-96 access and relatively

20 easy I-275 access. It's being offered for

21 $2.35 a square foot. You can see that with

22 $40 per square foot of renovations you can't

23 make those and get any kind of rate of

24 return. You can't make the debt service on



1 those renovations with that kind of rental

2 rate.

3 That building has 18 truck wells and

4 docks. It was built about the same time.

5 It's got a 20 foot ceiling height. There is

6 a huge surplus of industrial buildings.

7 Many that our newer with higher ceilings and

8 more truck docks. And this building simply

9 isn't marketable for those kinds of uses.

10 So what do we do? Well, let's focus

11 on where we have some consensus and on where

12 you can go from here. I think we would all

13 agree that some use of that site is

14 desirable. We might disagree on what the

15 desirable use is, but some use of that site

16 is desirable. It will maintain the tax

17 base. It will assure that the property is

18 properly attended to. It will assist local

19 business by bringing more patrons into the

20 area. I think we would agree that finding a

21 use for the site is important.

22 We would agree I think that traffic

23 flows on Novi Road are a challenge during

24 peak traffic hours. We submitted a traffic



1 study done in 2006 by Tetratec that shows

2 that during those peak weekday traffic

3 hours, that road operates at a level F. It

4 doesn't go any lower. Dan McCleary, our

5 real estate expert also has resided in the

6 area, drives through it on a regular basis

7 and testified to that.

8 In fact, City officials and others

9 have expressed concern about that in some of

10 the materials that they filed. I think they

11 would agree that the City's long-term dream

12 for the site is to have it be Downtown West,

13 although that's not fully defined yet and

14 you are going through the master planning

15 process, it's our understanding that that

16 would focus on commercial entertainment and

17 cultural uses tying back to principle

18 shopping and business districts. Ideally

19 the sites would be available for that when

20 the economy picks up and when there is a

21 demand for those kinds of uses. It's a

22 desirable site for it because it's got high

23 visibility and so forth. The market simply

24 isn't there and isn't going to be there for



1 the foreseeable future.

2 I think we would agree that the

3 current site and the building on the site

4 presents some special challenges. The extent

5 of those challenges we may debate. And the

6 affect of those challenges on whether the

7 use is economically viable we may have some

8 differences of opinion on, but I think that

9 we would agree that a 40-year-old industrial

10 building of that kind presents some special

11 challenges.

12 So the question is where do we go from

13 here? If you believe any of what we have

14 presented about the obsolescence of the

15 property with regard to Section 1901 and

16 1902 uses, then you know that some use of

17 the site needs to be found. If you believe

18 what City officials have presented about

19 their concerns about the Novi Trade Center

20 as we have presented it, you want to be sure

21 those concerns are appropriately and

22 reasonably addressed.

23 Allow me to make some suggestions that

24 might create a win-win situation for the



1 City, for the property owner and for the


2 public. First, I would invite you to make

3 clear whether or not you wish to see the

4 kind of outcome I discussed. If you don't

5 believe the Applicant's position at all,

6 then you should take action to deny both of

7 the Applicants' request, the interpretation

8 request and the variance request.

9 If, however, you believe there is some

10 merit to the Applicant's position, then you

11 have before you two alternative approaches

12 to addressing the issue. Either one, you

13 can agree with the Applicant's

14 interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance

15 finding that the Trade Center is an Expo

16 Center or so similar to one as to be

17 included in the Expo Center Zoning District.

18 We think that externally and

19 internally with a weekend use and the kinds

20 of exhibits that are going to be there and

21 so forth from a land use perspective, there

22 will be virtually no difference between what

23 the public sees with an Expo Center and what

24 the public sees with this Trade Center. Or,



1 two, you could decide that Ms. McBeth's

2 interpretation is correct, but that a use

3 variance is appropriate under the

4 circumstances.

5 Second, decide which of the two

6 approaches you prefer. There are advantages

7 and disadvantages of each approach. The

8 interpretation approach will make the Trade

9 Center a use by right. The use variance

10 allows you to attach reasonable conditions

11 but a granted use variance runs with the

12 land generally.

13 Third, identify the concerns you have

14 and address them in a clear thinking

15 cooperative problem solving kind of way.

16 Let me give you some examples and

17 suggestions. Traffic, because it will be

18 open only on Saturdays and Sundays, the

19 Trade Center will have no impact on peak

20 weekday traffic congestion. The Trade

21 Center would have less traffic impact during

22 peak hours than any other use suggested for

23 the site. Look at the possibility of a shift

24 change with 500 or so employees there plus



1 dozens of trucks going in and out each day

2 with any of the Section 1901 and 1902 uses.

3 Mr. Adell has said that

4 he has talked with an organization that

5 handles traffic and they are convinced they

6 can get traffic in and out of the site with

7 little disruption to the general public

8 using Novi Road. In fact, the Trade Center

9 will have less weekday traffic impact than

10 the Novi Expo Center that was and remains a

11 permitted use. That is, with the Novi Trade

12 Center because the exhibits will stay in

13 place for a couple of months at a time,

14 there won't be setup and take down during

15 the week because it's open only on Saturdays

16 and Sundays and not on Wednesdays, Thursdays

17 and Fridays as many of those trade shows

18 were, you won't have the weekday traffic

19 concern. So the traffic impact will

20 actually be less with the proposed Novi

21 Trade Center.

22 If granting a variance you could

23 impose conditions limiting its open hours to

24 Saturday and Sunday assuring traffic impact



1 is minimized.

2 The Trade Center may be the most

3 advantageous use of the site from a traffic

4 standpoint. I can't conceive of another use

5 which would have such minimal impacts and

6 impacts only on weekends.

7 Parking. There are 937 on-site

8 parking spaces. And I want to make that

9 very clear because I misstated it in my

10 memorandum and so did Mr. Schultz. Mr.

11 Schultz said there were 902 and in my

12 memorandum I said there were 952. There are

13 902 regular parking spaces and 35 handicap

14 parking spaces identified on the site plan

15 that I submitted.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Mr. Smith, could

17 you stay at the microphone?

18 MR. SMITH: I need to stay at the

19 microphone.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Or pick up the hand

21 mic, either one.

22 MR. SMITH: I'm better when I move.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Pick up the hand

24 mic.



1 MR. SMITH: To quote the Sundance Kid.

2 Twelve Oaks Mall has one space for

3 every 219 square feet. That is it's got

4 7,051 spaces for 1,545,000 square feet of

5 gross leasable area according to the Twelve

6 Oaks Mall website. If I take the gross

7 leasable area of the Novi Expo Center

8 building and divide it by the 937 parking

9 spaces, I get one for about 250 square feet.

10 Assuming that about 20 percent of the

11 294,000 square feet, that's the City's

12 estimate is not leasable and there is about

13 20 percent of that space that would not be

14 leased and used for the Trade Center purpose

15 or at least that much.

16 If approved, the Applicant will find

17 off site parking for all exhibitors and

18 shuttle them from the remote location to the

19 site. And we're willing to say if you

20 imposed a condition, that we will have to

21 show you that we have a binding agreement

22 for that. If there are 1,200 booths we

23 would, therefore, have 1,200 off-site

24 parking spaces making the total space 2,137



1 essentially creating one space for every 109

2 square feet of space.Again, you could make a

3 condition on here to address that concern.

4 Building code and fire code compliance

5 were addressed in some of the staff memos,

6 we would, of course, have to get a

7 certificate of occupancy and comply with the

8 building and fire codes.

9 Concerns about the type of exhibitors.

10 There were concerns raised in some of the

11 letters. There were concerns raised in some

12 of the staff memorandums or at least

13 references to that. It's a little amorphous

14 because nobody has identified for us what

15 specific concerns there are. But we suspect

16 that we have goals and desires in terms of

17 the exhibitors that are similar to yours.

18 This isn't going to be a Gibraltar Trade

19 Center. This is going to be an upscale

20 operation with preassembled booths and

21 people will move into the booths and be tide

22 to specific areas. If you can identify your

23 concerns in terms of the list of things you

24 don't want sold in terms of other kinds of



1 things, we're happy to have a reasonable

2 condition imposed.

3 Look, Kevin is a successful

4 businessman as I said, the success of the

5 Novi Trade Center is rather certain at this

6 point. There were 300 people here at the

7 September meeting. Four thousand people

8 have expressed interest. Kevin's approach

9 as I said before is to be sure there is a

10 market before he asks for permission or

11 before he begins setting something up.

12 As a successful businessman, Kevin is

13 at times impatient with the process. I can

14 certainly attest to that. There are many

15 times I have had phone calls from him, but

16 he does listen to market feedback and he his

17 committed to doing what I have presented in

18 writing and what we are on the record

19 presenting here. We'll stipulate to that.

20 We'll put conditions on it. We'll do

21 whatever we have to do to satisfy folks that

22 that's what's going to happen.

23 Future site redevelopment in

24 accordance with the long-term vision. No



1 significant investment in this site is

2 required to use it for the Trade Center.

3 That assures that it's available for a

4 long-term use consistent with the City's

5 master plan. Kevin knows that ultimately

6 and Ralph knows that ultimately this site is

7 better being redeveloped. Ultimately that's

8 the best use for it. Currently there is no

9 market for it. So, what we have to do is

10 make some use of it in the interim until

11 that market develops.

12 You now have a choice, this matter is

13 well advocated. Mr. Schultz and I could

14 certainly continue our point, counter-point

15 approach probably for weeks. He is an able

16 attorney, and though he claims that my work

17 on behalf of a property owner, maybe

18 especially this property owner, is a step in

19 working on the dark side as he puts it. And

20 some of my other municipal colleagues have

21 said the same thing. My guess is that he

22 would concede that at least some of our

23 points have some merit. You can

24 deny our request in their entirety leaving



1 us to press our case in other forums to find

2 a viable use of the property, or you can

3 agree there is some merit to these requests

4 and we can then together address any

5 lingering concerns you have.

6 The Adells have owned this site for

7 decades. They have paid taxes for decades.

8 Yet regardless of causation I am perceiving

9 that the relationship between Kevin Adell

10 and the City is prickly at best, and I'll

11 leave it at that.

12 But Kevin is very successful in

13 business and can be a real community asset

14 here. I believe it's possible to create

15 this relationship in a manner that will make

16 the Novi Trade Center a community asset

17 until such time as the property likely

18 together with adjoining property is ripe for

19 redevelopment in accordance with the

20 Downtown West concept.

21 So I would invite you to work with us.

22 And with that we'll answer any questions you

23 have.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Mr.



1 Smith.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair?


4 MR. SCHULTZ: A quick comment. I

5 can't sort of let the way the thing ended go

6 without some sort of response. The City

7 doesn't have a prickly relationship with Mr.

8 Adell or anybody with an interest in that

9 property.

10 This is land use question. The

11 exhibitors aren't an issue. The use is an

12 issue. The owners aren't an issue, the use

13 is an issue. That's the question that you

14 need to decide.

15 Mr. Smith and I apparently shared a

16 one-sided joke that we've had on my side

17 anyway, with any number of developers'

18 attorneys, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Hymann, you name

19 any of the number of people you see here.

20 Not the kind of thing you would expect to

21 hear repeated back during a ZBA proceeding

22 like this. But that is what it is. We

23 represent developers too. But here we

24 represent with the City. We're happy to



1 deal with any attorney, any property owner

2 and I think the Board should be clear that

3 this is a neutral evaluation or your part.

4 It's a land use question. Thank you.

5 MR. SMITH: My statement, Mr.

6 Chairman, was totally tongue and cheek --

7 I'm sorry. My statement was totally tongue

8 and cheek. I didn't mean any slam on Mr.

9 Schultz. I have laughed at the joke. I

10 laughed when we talked --

11 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: Let's move on.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's fine. We're

13 going to move forward. Thank you.

14 From the opening brief statement I

15 believe I heard the City state basically

16 that they weren't prepared to make any

17 comments on the packet received from last

18 Friday. Is that correct?


19 MR. SCHULTZ: I can speak for myself.

20 I think we got it on Friday and I was out.

21 Most of the time I spent was today and I

22 think Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Royal, I don't

23 think anybody is prepared to make a

24 particular comment on what's in there. I am



1 certainly available to answer any questions

2 that you might have that come out of it.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All right, thank

4 you.

5 At this point I will open up the

6 meeting to the ZBA for discussion and

7 questions. Who cares to begin?

8 MEMBER CANUP: You're the Chairman

9 (unintelligible).

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I am going to

11 reserve my comments for last.

12 Member Fischer?


14 guess I would like echo Mr. Schultz's

15 comments that I am sorry you feel that this

16 may be a prickly relationship. I hope

17 that's not the case. I don't feel that way.

18 We're here every month deciding cases just

19 like this and I feel that none of the cases

20 that we have ever heard that I have had any

21 prickly relationship whatsoever. So let me

22 get that off my chest.

23 Certainly it is a lot of information

24 and unfortunately my first comment is that I



1 would like to request that we do get some

2 type of rebuttal back from the City

3 regarding the latest rebuttal we got from

4 Mr. Smith. But that said, Mr. Chair, I

5 would ask that the Board take a look at some

6 type of motion tonight at least saying that

7 there needs to be some type of final

8 information deadline to Mr. Smith's point.

9 We can sit here going back and forth time

10 and time again. So, I would like to make

11 sure that there is a decision coming forth

12 sooner rather than later and whatever we

13 decide tonight should we decide to ask for

14 additional information from our counsel, the

15 City attorneys or any other consultants that

16 we basically set aside two weeks or so that

17 these two attorneys can get their last

18 points in and that we're not getting into

19 the intricacies of the difference between

20 the word is and as and whatever else you

21 guys want to spend your time doing. So,

22 with that being said I'll go ahead and go

23 into some questions that I have.

24 I have seen a couple



1 different pieces of information that talk

2 about the different days of operation if one

3 of you want to come back up. Is Friday

4 night a night that you are planning on

5 having some type of event?

6 MR. SMITH: Friday night would be used

7 only for setup, that's it. It would be no

8 sales, no exhibits on Friday night. The

9 exhibits would be on Saturday and Sunday

10 only.

11 MR. ADELL: I'm Kevin Adell. I'm the

12 property owner. Actually --


14 swear him in since he's part of the case?

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: He was sworn in

16 before. You are still sworn.

17 MR. ADELL: That's fine. Actually,

18 most of the booths would be setup in advance

19 so we wouldn't be open to the public on

20 Friday. So just Saturday and Sunday and we

21 could work out hours that would be flexible

22 to the City of Novi and to the public that

23 it wouldn't confer with traffic.




1 six of your memorandum, Mr. Smith, you talk

2 about the City, the Schultz's memorandum.

3 And we'll call it that.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Only if you call his the

5 Smith memorandum.


7 independent body, I'll call it what I want

8 to.

9 To cite certain newspaper articles and

10 whatnot as far as what will be sold, I went

11 on the website today and it says you can

12 sell anything out there. On the record you

13 just stated that any stipulations that we

14 put on you are willing to live within the

15 means of those as long as they're

16 reasonable. What is your interpretation of

17 what can be sold and what kind of conditions

18 you feel is reasonable?

19 MR. SMITH: I presented that as part

20 of the application and we are talking about

21 collectibles and so forth and we are willing

22 to live with what's in that application

23 specifically.




1 MR. SMITH: We have put it in writing

2 and we're willing to live with that.


4 versus what's in writing versus what's being

5 advertised, that's what I'm trying to get

6 the clarification on.

7 MR. SMITH: I understand that. That's

8 why I was very careful tonight in saying

9 that we will stand by what's been submitted

10 and on the record here.


12 my question regarding, you know,

13 marketability and you covered it to some

14 extent in your memorandum, the Schultz's

15 memorandum. We go back to the fact that it

16 states: That the market likely -- his

17 memorandum page nine: The market likely

18 will not support a second venue competing

19 for the same shows and the expositions the

20 Applicant intends would not be permitted.

21 And he is talking about competition with the

22 Rock Financial Showplace. Can I ask for

23 some clarification? To what extent are

24 market conditions such as competition



1 between two businesses part of a ZBA

2 determination like this?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair. I

4 think you have our intent and my initial

5 memorandum. To address the question this is

6 Mr. Smith's somewhat different point of

7 view. And I guess I read this point in his

8 memorandum to say, well, the market can't

9 support two exposition centers. And I guess

10 one of the sort of overarching questions we

11 have about a number of things that are in

12 the submission is in order to make that

13 finding, in order to say okay, that makes

14 sense to me, there needs to be some basis

15 for the Board to say that.

16 Assume for a minute that you had

17 enough information by which you conclude,

18 okay, I accept that statement as true. From

19 a use variance perspective, you have got to

20 answer the question, okay, there is one use

21 that maybe isn't going to work. Assuming

22 you have satisfied that. You still got to

23 look at all the other uses and say

24 essentially the same thing. Is there a



1 market? Is there usability for any of these

2 other issues?

3 The point of the Planning staff's memo

4 on the question of the use variance and the

5 four standards in meeting the four standards

6 is, this is not just the Applicant who can

7 say you're wrong, this is any number of

8 other people who can look at the Board's

9 decision and say I want to challenge that

10 because they didn't make the right findings.

11 What Mr. Smith's task is is to prove

12 to you through the submission of evidence

13 that none of these uses that are permitted

14 in this District including the exposition

15 uses or the other ones that go along with

16 light industrial are viable, economically

17 viable and reasonable uses. Is the market

18 an issue for that? He takes the position

19 under case called Jansen that the market is

20 an issue. And I guess from our perspective,

21 what he has got to show is that the property

22 can't be used, isn't viable for every one of

23 those uses.

24 The market isn't really the major



1 factor in that. The market is a cyclical

2 thing. The market might be different a year

3 from now. If you look from some of the

4 stuff from CB Richard Ellis in terms of what

5 the market is doing, there is information

6 that they have that says the market could be

7 headed up shore in a year or two. You are

8 not predicting the market. You are looking

9 at the land use and whether the use makes

10 sense and whether there is any reasonable

11 return under any of those uses that can be

12 made. It's a whole range of issues you have

13 to look at not just the market.


15 return under any market or the current

16 market?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: Not just the current

18 market. The Jansen case, for example, which

19 Mr. Smith cites in his brief is a situation

20 where it's a 100 acre farm, master plan for

21 residential use, not agricultural and nobody

22 is farming in the area and the guy can't

23 even get enough farming to pay the taxes on

24 the property. So the court said that's a



1 financial hardship. Is there evidence here

2 that no use in here is going to get through

3 the next cycle? Is there any evidence

4 that's on the record here that the master

5 plan use is never going to work here?

6 That's the question.


8 And that does actually lead me to one of my

9 points. What kind of financial analysis has

10 been done? You have talked and cited some

11 examples of cost of retrofitting and upside

12 down situations. Do you have any analysis

13 in a summary format that you could present

14 to the Board that shows the different

15 scenarios and the different retrofits that

16 you looked at versus what you could then

17 market it for and how it's upside down and

18 how long it would take to become break even,

19 et cetera?

20 MR. SMITH: I could do that in the

21 next week or so. We have talked at length

22 with the engineer and the contractor and Mr.

23 McCleary has talked at length with them and

24 they have done some rough calculations to



1 this point but they are not in a finished

2 presentable form. They're the kinds of

3 things that Mr. McCleary can rely on for his

4 opinion and reasonable parties would rely

5 upon to form an opinion, but they're not in

6 a format where they would make sense to you

7 at this point.


9 think --

10 MR. SMITH: I'm willing to do that.

11 If you want us to do that I'll be happy to

12 go through each of those uses and come up

13 with the cost of retrofitting it and why it

14 doesn't work.

15 VICE-CHAIRMAN FISCHER: And that would

16 be something, Mr. Chairman, I would continue

17 to look for obviously to determine the

18 possibility to turn this into something that

19 could have a reasonable return. I feel like

20 some type of financial evaluation would need

21 to take place. We don't have that in any of

22 our information from our side, their side,

23 anywhere. Plus I'm a finance guy, so I

24 guess that makes sense to me.



1 Looking to page 14 and

2 15 of your memorandum, you go through some

3 type of scenario here regarding the traffic

4 and you end with the logic of: To deny the

5 Applicant's request due to traffic would

6 essentially say that every possible use of

7 the property would be denied due to traffic

8 concerns rendering the property unusable.

9 Can you take me through that logic of that

10 paragraph because I didn't quite understand

11 that.

12 MR. SMITH: Well, it goes to what I

13 said in my presentation. The traffic impact

14 of this use is the least impact of any use I

15 can imagine for this site. Every other use

16 including every use in the Zoning Ordinance

17 will have peak traffic hour impacts. If you

18 look at an industrial use with 500 or 800

19 cars parked there and you look at a shift

20 change or you look at what happens at 8:00

21 in the morning or at 5:00 in the evening, or

22 you look at the truck traffic that that

23 would bring in and out of the site as a

24 warehousing operation, an R&D operation or




1 anything else, you are looking at traffic

2 impacts that are huge in comparison to what

3 we have here where it's only off peak

4 weekend use that you have.

5 So, if you're saying that this has too

6 great a traffic impact, I can't conceive of

7 any other use that wouldn't have a greater

8 adverse traffic impact and therefore,

9 wouldn't be permitted because of the

10 traffic.


12 under the Zoning Ordinance?

13 MR. SMITH: Under the current zoning,

14 that's correct. That's what I have to deal

15 with is only the current zoning.


17 to the Affidavit from Angela Secor (ph),

18 page two of three discusses how she

19 categorize certain different shows. Can you

20 walk me through that a little bit?

21 MR. SMITH: Sure. She went to on-line

22 material for each of these shows and most of

23 the shows at the Expo Center or at the Rock

24 Financial Showplace are rotating or



1 wandering shows that kind of go from forum

2 to forum or place to place across the

3 country and she looked at those and those

4 shows are all designed to sell products.

5 That's the purpose of the shows. Most of

6 them are relatively intensive retail kinds

7 of things.

8 If you have a baseball card

9 collection, for instance, you come to buy,

10 sell and trade those baseball cards. If

11 you're a coin dealer going to a coin show

12 you are coming to buy, sell and trade coins.

13 The same for all of these, the gem shows,

14 the camper and RV show and so forth. So she

15 went through the data that the City

16 presented for the 2003 calendar year and

17 went to those websites and did an analysis

18 based on the website and what those websites

19 claim the shows are all about. And they are

20 about buying, selling and trading.


22 looking through that what I found

23 interesting about that analysis, Mr. Chair,

24 was of the consumer shows identified in any



1 of the filing appear to be primarily retail

2 events and talks about remodeling home

3 events, camper and RV, boats, pool and spas,

4 antique arms situations and talking about

5 the similar, dissimilar there. I have an

6 issue because any time I drove by when those

7 type of things were going on I didn't see

8 every single person walking out with a

9 camper or an RV or a boat as opposed to

10 something that I would consider this seems

11 to be a hyper retail I believe is the term

12 that was used. So, I just wanted to give my

13 points on the analysis there.

14 Moving along to the Affidavit by Mr.

15 McCleary. Given this, Mr. Schultz, this

16 Affidavit compared with the memorandum from

17 Mr. Hill, the Hill memorandum talks about

18 the difference between the property and the

19 building and how the interpretation or

20 appeal should be handled accordingly whether

21 we're looking at the building or we're

22 looking at the land. Can you speak to that

23 at all? I know it's a general and a vague

24 question.



1 MR. SCHULTZ: And I think that's --


3 a lot of lawyer words.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah, and I think that's

5 one of the things that probably we would

6 like to respond to in writing because it's a

7 pretty significant point.


9 (Unintelligible). MR. SCHULTZ:

10 Sure. You know, the standards for the use

11 variance I think relate to more than just

12 the existing building or the existing

13 improvements. I think they relate to the

14 property as a whole and the mere fact that

15 somebody might have to put some money into a

16 building to make the property as a whole is

17 not enough to say I'm entitled to a use

18 variance. You got to look at the property

19 as a whole with everything on it. But

20 ultimately the value that the land might

21 have might be enough for you to say there is

22 plenty of use on this property.

23 You pick a different example, you have

24 got a residential home that you don't want



1 to spend the money into to have fixed up so

2 that you can rent it out, but you may have a

3 valuable piece of residential property.

4 It's no different for this just because it's

5 a bigger building with a bigger investment.

6 I think that's one section, just so

7 you know it's page 12 and 13. It talks

8 about the Zoning Ordinance provision at best

9 is ambiguous. We're talking about the

10 building versus property. And you can talk

11 about the standards that are set by the

12 courts as far as that goes. I would

13 definitely appreciate if you could respond

14 to that.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely.


17 I'll wait for those questions until I get

18 that response. Those were some of the

19 preliminary questions I wanted to go

20 through, Mr. Chair. I don't want to hog all

21 the time. I want to give other people

22 opportunities to ask some preliminary

23 questions as long as I reserve the right to

24 ask questions at a later time.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You may have it.


3 Chair.


5 Member Fischer.

6 Other comments, questions by the

7 Board? Member Canup?

8 MEMBER CANUP: I had heard that there

9 had been an attempt to put a motor mall in

10 there back roughly a year ago where there

11 would be different vendors with automobiles

12 in there selling automobiles, etcetera.

13 What happened to that?

14 MS. KOSOVEC: Good evening.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Have you been sworn

16 in?

17 MS. KOSOVEC: I have not. I am an

18 attorney. I'm not sure if I need to be.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You don't need to

20 be if you're an attorney.

21 MS. KOSOVEC: Right. I think Mr.

22 Smith said, I'm not sure what that says

23 about all of us. I am an attorney that

24 represents the Trust and I was involved in



1 the potential sublease for the auto mall

2 concept. Basically there was a decision

3 made that that was not a viable operation

4 for us and we are presently in arbitration

5 dealing with that issue at this point.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: For the record did

7 you give us your name and address?

8 MS. KOSOVEC: Julie Kosovec.



11 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And an address?

12 MS. KOSOVEC: 322 North Old Woodward,

13 Birmingham, Michigan.


15 MEMBER CANUP: I guess my question

16 tonight to you would be, from the

17 information that I received about the motor

18 mall, it was a viable use. There were

19 people interested in coming in there, so

20 that to me demonstrates that there is other

21 uses other than the proposed use. And what

22 we have heard tonight is that there is

23 nothing else that would work there. And the

24 information that I received on that was that



1 the previous lease holder for personal

2 reasons, I guess with the Adell bunch or

3 group the thing fell apart. And it wasn't a

4 question that it wouldn't work, it was a

5 conflict with the lease holder and with the

6 owners.

7 MR. SMITH: It still isn't a use that

8 is allowable under the current zoning. It

9 would have required a rezoning.

10 MEMBER CANUP: But there is still

11 other uses for it other than a multiple

12 retail outlet which is what you are

13 proposing.

14 MR. SMITH: The question is whether it

15 can be used as zoned, I think.

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Point well taken.


17 Other comments from the Board?

18 MS. KOSOVEC: If I could make one

19 other comment about that. There were

20 certainly a lot of issues relating to the

21 commercial reasonableness of that transition

22 that were not before the Board. That is the

23 central issue for the arbitration. That is

24 what we're dealing with. That proposed use



1 may have been submitted through preplanning

2 meetings, but at that point there had been

3 no feasibility studies done whatsoever and

4 we're dealing with that issue at this point.

5 And, although there was a concept

6 presented, there was no financial backing

7 for that at all. And I would be happy to

8 answer any other questions, but frankly I

9 thought we were here to deal with a

10 different issue not related to that.

11 MEMBER CANUP: I think the point of

12 the Board is to find all the facts that they

13 can whether they interest you or not and to

14 be able to make a decision on what can be

15 done or what the Board feels should be done

16 with that property.

17 MS. KOSOVEC: And at this point,

18 again, we did not think that that was a

19 viable option. The Trust did not.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We are

21 going to try to pursue all the information

22 that we feel might be necessary in making a

23 reasonable and rational decision.

24 I will go ahead and ask some of my



1 questions. I want to verify a couple

2 things. First of all, Mr. Smith, will you

3 come back up?

4 You indicated that the parking spaces

5 that are currently approved is actually the

6 937 as opposed to 952?

7 MR. SMITH: That's correct. There are

8 902 regular spaces and 35 handicap spaces.

9 There is a site plan that shows where those

10 are on the site and counts all of those

11 spaces.

12 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And you had

13 indicated if need be, you would be able to

14 provide proof of secured additional parking?

15 MR. SMITH: We will provide off-site

16 parking before a C of O is granted or

17 however you want to condition that and

18 shuttle all of the exhibitors to the site.

19 We'll provide off-site parking for them all.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You discussed the

21 off-site parking for them, but you did not

22 discuss the other employees of the Expo such

23 as the ticket takers, housekeeping,

24 janitorial services, vendors, meaning food



1 vendors type things, laborers, management,

2 about how many additional employees would be

3 housed at the Expo on a typical weekend?

4 MR. ADELL: Thirty.

5 MR. SMITH: Kevin thinks about 30. We

6 can shuttle them as well. We'll commit to

7 doing that.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's miniscule.

9 I thought it would be quite a bit higher.

10 One of the questions for the City is,

11 the Expo closed two or three years ago.

12 About how many additional businesses have

13 located in that area like within a half mile

14 or so? Just close to that area that would

15 also require additional traffic and things

16 like that?

17 MS. McBETH: You are referring to

18 additional businesses that have occupied the

19 general vicinity since the Expo Center

20 closed?

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I know they just

22 built a building for four retail people

23 between the doctor's office and Wendy's.

24 MS. McBETH: That's correct. South of



1 the Wendy's there is new retail building

2 that I believe has hot been occupied yet.

3 South of that there was a re-occupancy as an

4 existing building. Tenants come and go out

5 of the retail centers that are located

6 around that area. The Melting Pot I think

7 has come in, but that was kind of a

8 different restaurant previously. So, the

9 tenants come and go. That's a new building.

10 We're expecting other new buildings over at

11 the Town Center on the four out lots for the

12 Town Center there.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Four out buildings

14 there?

15 MS. McBETH: Four out buildings there.

16 The new wing at the Twelve Oaks Mall, the

17 new Nordstrom store. We are seeing a lot of

18 additional activity over there.


20 anticipate the buildings coming on board at

21 Main Street?

22 MS. McBETH: We expect the first

23 building will start construction shortly.

24 They were talking about phasing that



1 development over the next coming year, so

2 possibly one building every year for the

3 next eight or ten years.

4 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And the building is

5 to be located just on the south side of

6 Grand River, west of Novi Road?

7 MS. McBETH: That's correct. There

8 was a demolition of the old Antique and Pine

9 Building and a new building would be

10 constructed at that location and then two

11 additional retail buildings along there as

12 well.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And obviously we

14 don't have a traffic study for anticipated

15 future use with those buildings coming in

16 and those businesses occupying.

17 MS. McBETH: I think the most recent

18 traffic study we have is the one that was

19 resubmitted with this request here which was

20 a 2006 I believe traffic study that was

21 associated with that auto mall.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Chair, before you

23 leave the parking issue.

24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.



1 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess it may seem like

2 a matter of semantics, but I'm not sure that

3 it is. We've got this issue is it 902 or if

4 it's 952. It's only one site plan that's

5 ever been approved through the planning

6 process and that's for the old Expo site and

7 that shows by the accounting of the Planning

8 staff the lesser, the number that's

9 identified in their report. It may be that

10 they can get more spaces as shown on the

11 plan that they submitted along with their

12 application, but I don't think the Planning

13 staff has gone through and scaled that out

14 in the way that they normally would for a

15 site plan review. So, in terms of who is

16 right wrong, who is wrong, it's somewhere

17 between 902 and 952, but there is not an

18 approved plan at 952 that I know of.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You can safely say

20 give or take 50.

21 MS. McBETH: That's correct. And if I

22 can add something if you don't mind to that

23 point as well. Usually the Zoning Ordinance

24 requires parking spaces to be on-site



1 parking spaces or within a certain limited

2 distance of the property. So any kind of

3 off-site approval if it's required parking

4 would require consideration of a study and

5 approval by the Planning Commission for a

6 modification for something like.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Has

8 either side, does anybody know about how

9 long an average time is spent during one of

10 the Expo shows by a participant? In other

11 words, do they come for two hours? Do they

12 come for three hours? Four hours?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: Customer or exhibitor?


15 MS. McBETH: Mr. Chair, we did not

16 have that information readily available. We

17 could possibly look into that for the next

18 submittal of information.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: It's something that

20 I would be interested in. I know the shows

21 that I have attended in the past I was there

22 two or three hours on the average. However,

23 if I was to enter a trade center that has

24 1,200 vendors I think I'd be there all day.



1 And obviously if you are there two or three

2 hours the turnover of parking may happen two

3 or three times. If I'm there all day I'm

4 taking up a space all day.

5 Is there a study or an anticipated

6 time on the Trade Center for the typical

7 participant or visitor I should say?

8 MR. SMITH: I will endeavor to get you

9 some data on that as well.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Tide in with that,

11 what are we using as a comparison? I have

12 heard other trade centers mentioned. I

13 personally have never been to one. I

14 haven't been to Gibraltar or the other one

15 that was mentioned in Taylor. So what are

16 we comparing your proposal to? Is there

17 something I can go visit?

18 MR. SMITH: There are a couple in

19 Florida. I am sure the City would send you.

20 Some festival sample in Florida. We'll try

21 to get some information about those if we

22 can and some photographs and that may be

23 helpful.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Even a website



1 would be helpful that I could go on-line and

2 do further investigation on that.

3 MR. SMITH: This is a little different

4 concept, but we will try to get you what we

5 can.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We keep comparing

7 the Trade Center to the Expo, but I want to

8 compare the Trade Center to something

9 similar since we're saying they're

10 dissimilar and they're not in competition

11 with one another.

12 MR. SMITH: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, you talked

14 about meeting the occupancy which, of

15 course, has been set up by the fire marshall

16 once that would be set in place. Did I hear

17 you say that you have already secured

18 secondary access?

19 MR. SMITH: We do have secondary

20 access. Pico (ph) will let us use their

21 site for secondary access.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Do we have written

23 document to that effect?

24 MR. SMITH: Julie talked to them and



1 confirmed that with their attorney. We can

2 get you written.


4 MEMBER CANUP: Excuse me I was looking

5 for something here. Could you repeat what

6 that question was?

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I had asked if they

8 had secured secondary access for

9 (unintelligible), etcetera and they said

10 they verbally received approval and I

11 requested the written documentation.

12 I'm going to come back to these in a

13 minute. While I'm thinking about it, Mr.

14 McCleary, could you come forward and be

15 sworn in. I have a question or two for you,

16 sir, unless you're an attorney.

17 MR. McCLEARY: I'm not an attorney,

18 no.

19 MEMBER BAUER: Do you swear or affirm

20 to tell the truth regarding Case: 07-059?

21 MR. McCLEARY: Yes.

22 MEMBER BAUER: Thank you, sir.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please state your

24 name and address.



1 MR. McCLEARY: Daniel McCleary, 19610

2 Wilshire, Beverly Hills.


4 The first thing that I see that stands

5 out to me is that you indicate that you are

6 not an appraiser and do not appraise

7 property. Do you work with appraisers or do

8 you have access to information on the

9 property? Because I know you'll always look

10 at highest and best use for not only the

11 land but the building as well in an

12 appraised site?

13 MR. McCLEARY: I'm not an appraiser

14 that's correct. Do I work with appraisers?

15 I work with them back and forth helping each

16 other with information. Do I have access to

17 them? Yes, because we communicate through

18 phone, e-mail, whatever, to help each other

19 do what we're doing, you know.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: But you pulled no

21 information from them for this Affidavit; is

22 that correct?

23 MR. McCLEARY: No.


24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I got a question



1 mark beside something here. I got to figure

2 out why I put the question mark there. It

3 has to do with NEC sites. Could you go into

4 a little more detail about that for us

5 please?

6 MR. McCLEARY: Where are you at in

7 the --

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: On the second page

9 throughout, actually it starts at point 14

10 Novi Expo Center.

11 MR. McCLEARY: Yes. Fourteen, I can

12 address, I am familiar. I walked through

13 the site here in the last few months a

14 couple of times. As it says I have toured

15 it there on 15. I walked through with

16 several representatives that are here

17 tonight. I also walked through with Roth


18 Construction Engineering Group as it states

19 in 15 with engineering. He is also a

20 commercial and industrial contractor.

21 I have briefly reviewed the traffic

22 studies that were done. I personally have

23 tried to get through there at certain times

24 during the day and take other routes to



1 avoid during peak hours. When I say peak

2 hours I would say the morning rush hour

3 Monday through Friday and also that 4:00 to

4 6:00 hour in the evening I would do my best

5 to avoid it personally. And then -- I can

6 continue on if you so desire.

7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: If you would skip

8 down please to item 19F when you are

9 referring to the HVAC equipment. I know

10 that there are offices within that property.

11 The offices are currently heat and air

12 conditioned; is that correct?

13 MR. McCLEARY: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And what we're

15 saying is that the unit is adequate for

16 those but not for an expansion of the office

17 area?

18 MR. McCLEARY: The current heating and

19 cooling system, I mean, I have seen this in

20 many cases where people have tried to expand

21 it out beyond the existing offices. They do

22 not find it adequate due to the fact that

23 when that building was built, they

24 engineered it for that building not for



1 proposed expansion.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Is any of the

3 building tempered air as opposed to air

4 conditioning?

5 MR. McCLEARY: When you are saying

6 tempered air do you mean --


8 primarily through fans as opposed to freon

9 type?

10 MR. McCLEARY: There is minimal

11 exhaust fans that I have seen in the

12 building. How it was used, I don't know.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Are you familiar,

14 Mr. Adell?

15 MR. ADELL: (Unintelligible.)

16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Another swearing

17 in?

18 MR. SMITH: He was sworn in last time.

19 MR. JOSEPH: I was sworn in last time.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: You are still sworn

21 in then.

22 MR. JOSEPH: Currently all the current

23 HVAC units are all with condensers and freon

24 and such like that. They had an existing



1 updraft system which was more of like a

2 make-up air unit there, but that was

3 abandoned many many years ago and when the

4 current Expo Center came into being or the

5 old Expo Center came into being, they

6 changed that over and put the standard roof

7 top units with condensers and heating and

8 cooling.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And you agree that

10 it's not currently adequate to suffice any

11 additional office areas or expansion in that

12 area?

13 MR. JOSEPH: If you took the existing

14 office areas and expanded it into the

15 warehouse area, you would have extensive

16 modification of the roof top unit, you would

17 have to put in a whole VAV system and whole

18 duct work system. Currently right now they

19 are just roof top units that blow air into

20 like a large vicinity. You would have

21 extensive duct work you would have to do.

22 And since most of those units are upwards to

23 40 years old, probably the demand that an

24 office area would dedicate would probably



1 necessitate either the modifications of the

2 condensers or the total replacement of the

3 units themselves.


5 MEMBER KRIEGER: Mr. Chair, can you

6 have the speaker restate his name.

7 MR. JOSEPH: My name is Chris Joseph

8 with Interior Development Group.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Even

10 though we know who you are, I guess the

11 audience and our recorder doesn't, so thank

12 you.

13 In one of the letters, I'm looking at

14 the November 1st, 2007 letter from the

15 Applicant. It says the facility cannot be

16 expanded to the south due to the wetlands

17 for truck wells -- be expanded to build

18 truck wells due to the wetlands. Do we have

19 anything from the City that has indicated

20 that it could not be expanded to the south?

21 MS. McBETH: Mr. Chair, we don't have

22 anything in particular with regard to that.

23 The existing wetlands are kind of the

24 natural area that is located on the south



1 part of the property. I'm not sure where

2 they are coming from about which part of the

3 expansion wouldn't be permitted into that

4 area.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That would be

6 something else that I would be looking at

7 would be is there adequate room to expand

8 the truck wells, and if, so, how many could

9 they add? We, of course, would want to make

10 sure that it wouldn't impede upon a wetland

11 or a woodland or anything like that.

12 Yes, sir?

13 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess just a general

14 point on some of the things that are talked

15 about in the last few minutes, the building

16 and things like that. I think with regard

17 to Stout, Risius report we are at a little

18 bit of a disadvantage. We asked to get on

19 the property to take a look and have them

20 get inside the way CB Richard Ellis and Mr.

21 McCleary was. Didn't get that approval and

22 I would hope that as part of the Board's

23 inquiry if you want some understanding of

24 how the City might react to that information



1 you are getting tonight, we would need to

2 have the same sort of access to that

3 property that that their consultants had.

4 So, I am hoping that will be asked for and

5 granted.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay. Point well

7 taken.


9 address that right now.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Well, we can. Is

11 there any reason why the City would not be

12 able to have access to the property?

13 MR. ADELL: No, definitely not. I

14 invited the Board there some time --

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Please come

16 forward.

17 MR. ADELL: Of course they would be

18 invited there. In fact, we invited the

19 Board some time to come and visit the

20 property and they declined. By all means I

21 didn't know that someone wanted access in

22 the building.


24 declined?



1 MR. ADELL: Which Board was it?

2 MR. SMITH: We had suggested that City

3 officials come out and tour the building and

4 take a look at the site and so far they have

5 not taken us up on that offer.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: I think that was a

7 comment, if I may through the Chair,

8 included in the original application or one

9 of the letters saying the Board is invited

10 out there. I don't know if the Board has

11 ever made a site visit. You certainly can,

12 but we're actually interested in a little

13 more in the consults who are sort of on the

14 par with the people who have spoken tonight.

15 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I think what we're

16 looking at is having the experts be able to

17 view the property and be able to address our

18 questions. I'm not sure I would know

19 exactly what I was looking for if I was

20 there.

21 MR. ADELL: Yeah, by all means, you

22 are welcome.

23 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. One of

24 the other questions I have -- Mr. Smith,



1 perhaps you can address this. Prior to the

2 variance request that you indicated, what

3 marketing efforts were made for the

4 property?

5 MR. SMITH: Well, the previous

6 occupant of the property, the Novi Expo

7 Center made extensive efforts to market the

8 property. Since they vacated it we've made

9 a number of other efforts. Kevin has a list

10 of folks that he's contacted to try to see

11 particularly for the uses under warehousing

12 and other kinds of uses what they would like

13 to do. And he has contacted some realtors

14 and otherwise about asking what they think

15 he can get for the property. And he is not

16 so far had any kind of adequate response.

17 In fact, at one time Kevin gave me a list of

18 about 60 or 80 people he cold called trying

19 to get them to come in to use it for

20 warehousing and something else and he was

21 turned away.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's a list of

23 potential users?

24 MR. SMITH: Yes.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: And the list would

2 include what they were perhaps interested

3 in? Or was it a survey of the potential

4 users as to what they might be interested

5 in?

6 MR. SMITH: I'll get you that list and

7 detail that.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. I'm not

9 interested in what the Expo previously tried

10 to market it for. They had a market in

11 place and whether they tried --

12 MR. SMITH: Well, what I'm saying is

13 as they vacated it they were trying to find

14 other uses including the auto center to

15 which Mr. Canup referred and so forth and at

16 one point, in fact, they had had discussions

17 with the Festival marketplace folks down in

18 Florida about potentially occupying it. So

19 there have been a number of efforts made to

20 try to market the property.

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, thank you.

22 Yes, I would appreciate that information. I

23 think that's the main questions I had for

24 now. Is there other questions from the



1 Board?

2 Member Sanghvi?

3 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yes. I'm just

4 curious, Mr. Smith. Good evening.

5 MR. SMITH: Good evening.

6 MEMBER SANGHVI: I was just looking at

7 your exhibits. I was curious, I wasn't

8 going to ask you but it came up in the

9 conversation today about you have presented

10 the findings of some traffic study for an

11 auto mall or something which --

12 MR. SMITH: There was a 2006 traffic

13 study done by Tetratec.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: Yeah, I got this

15 here. I was just curious that do you think

16 that the traffic flow from your proposed

17 center is going to be compatible to this

18 auto mall traffic flow?

19 MR. SMITH: Not during the weekdays,

20 not when the intersections are functioning

21 at their -- not when the road and the

22 intersections are functioning at their worst

23 because the traffic will be generated only

24 on weekends.



1 MEMBER SANGHVI: I just wondered why

2 you thought fit to put that auto mall

3 traffic study here as part of your exhibit?

4 MR. SMITH: Because it's the only

5 traffic study I'm aware of that looks at the

6 site and because City staff had asked about

7 what kinds of information was available.

8 And I think this Board asked in September if

9 we had a traffic study. And that was the

10 only one I had available.

11 MEMBER SANGHVI: Because it was only

12 one it was all about --

13 MR. SMITH: That's right.

14 MEMBER SANGHVI: You didn't really

15 think it was identical to what might happen,

16 did you?

17 MR. SMITH: No, I'm not in any way

18 claiming that it's identical.

19 MEMBER SANGHVI: Thank you. I just

20 wanted to clarify that. Thank you very


21 much.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

23 Sanghvi.

24 One of the comments I had on that too



1 is I'm concerned that there hasn't been a

2 more recent traffic study. As mentioned

3 before with all the additional buildings and

4 business going into the area and the Expo

5 not being there for two to three years, I am

6 very concerned about the traffic in that

7 area. And you keep talking about the

8 traffic being weekends only and not the peak

9 rush hours, et cetera, during the week, and

10 I agree that there is no, that it may not

11 affect the weekday rush hours, however, on

12 weekends, especially around Christmas and

13 Thanksgiving and some of the prime shopping

14 areas, I'd much rather travel that road

15 during a peak weekday hour than on a weekend

16 especially at the time that there was an

17 Expo center going on.

18 MR. SMITH: I could probably say that

19 regarding any area that's serviced by a

20 regional mall including the two in Grand

21 Rapids and so forth. You certainly can't

22 design traffic flows to accommodate some of

23 those extraordinary peak times because you

24 would have roads that are 20 lanes wide.



1 So, we don't do that.

2 And I too would think that the City

3 would have be interested in getting more

4 traffic studies as it continues to allow

5 other uses to go in. This building has been

6 there for 40 years and it seems to tell this

7 property owner now who has paid taxes all of

8 this time to support the infrastructure who

9 has had a building there that you can't now

10 have a use because we have taken all of the

11 capacity and we have allowed all of these

12 other uses to come in --

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I don't believe

14 anybody said that, sir.

15 MR. SMITH: I understand that. I'm

16 just saying that it would seem, it seems

17 difficult to say that there ought to be a

18 traffic study in connection with this use as

19 opposed to all of the others that have been

20 permitted and allowed over time.

21 MS. McBETH: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, may

22 I clarify a comment I made earlier?


24 MS. McBETH: There certainly have been



1 traffic studies that have been done over the

2 years and as every project comes in we

3 evaluate it in terms of traffic and whether

4 a traffic study has been needed.

5 I think I was referring to the fact

6 that I didn't think there was a more recent

7 traffic study for this piece of property

8 than the 2006 traffic study that we had.

9 Thank you.


11 Fischer?


13 may have a couple more followup questions.

14 Your questions actually sparked one of them.

15 First let me state first that this Board

16 member and I can pretty much guarantee for

17 the whole Board would never say that

18 something doesn't have a use, so I can

19 guarantee that.

20 As far as how it was marketed

21 previously and what has been done currently

22 by Mr. Adell, can you elaborate on that?

23 Has it just been cold calls? Has there been

24 a professional marketing service? Has CB



1 Richard Ellis been invited in to try to

2 broker something?

3 MR. SMITH: Why don't I get you all of

4 the detail on that in writing and detail it

5 in a way that makes that pretty clear.


7 that I'm an analytical guy I like it.

8 Prior to the Novi Expo Center what

9 occupied that building for the first 20

10 years or so?

11 MR. ADELL: It was Mohawk.

12 MR. SMITH: It was Mohawk. It was a

13 distillery.


15 using the building as a Trade Center, is

16 alcohol going to be on the premises at all?

17 MR. SMITH: No, we've said that, there

18 won't be any alcohol.


20 then lastly, there was a comment at the

21 September 11th meeting regarding I think it

22 was the Florida festival and Mayor Landry

23 and some meeting in 2004 --

24 MR. SMITH: It was not Mayor Landry.



1 It was a previous major and I can get you

2 that information too if you like. It was a

3 previous Novi mayor at the time that the

4 Novi Expo Center folks were looking at

5 filling that site with Festival marketplace,

6 the previous Novi major visited. Csordas,

7 that his name?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Mayor Csordas, through

9 the Chair, did while in Florida on other

10 business stop by the site.

11 MR. SMITH: Right.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: I would be happy to

13 provide the information on that if the Board

14 thinks it relevant.

15 MR. SMITH: Right. And I thought I

16 had clarified the record on that.


18 brought up by someone who apparently thought

19 it was pertinent and it didn't make any

20 sense because Mayor Landry wasn't mayor

21 then. So I was just hoping for some type of

22 clarification.

23 MR. SMITH: Right, that's correct.




1 it's pertinent or if you do, I would be more

2 than happy to look at it. But if you guys

3 don't, then I can drop the subject too.

4 Thank you for allowing me that time

5 for those follow-ups, Mr. Chair.


7 Member Krieger?

8 MEMBER KRIEGER: For, Mr. Counsel. I

9 lost my train of thought. It was regarding

10 what Mr. Shroyer, our Chair was speaking

11 about. I got to make my thought come back.

12 In regard to today's tough economic

13 times there were comments -- oh, there it

14 goes. The traffic, the complaints in the

15 previous, in the history of the Expo Center

16 how many complaints there were of traffic

17 that weekends even and what did the future

18 idea for the Trade Center, what proposal

19 that could be brought forward to compensate?

20 So you have a traffic study, but what would

21 you propose to alleviate the traffic so that

22 if you brought that in and you have traffic,

23 what are the people's options for traveling?

24 And also somebody had spoke in a



1 previous time in September regarding the

2 tough economic times. How long would we

3 have the Trade Center? Would there be a

4 temporary use variance, could there be done?

5 Or this is something we can't look at?

6 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, I

7 don't think they have asked for a temporary

8 status on this. And with regard to the

9 traffic issue, you know, I think that the

10 Applicant is going to submit whatever they

11 think is appropriate to address the issues

12 that have come up. We will be happy to look

13 at it. We aren't going to do a traffic

14 study.

15 It's not inappropriate I don't

16 think for a Board being asked to exercise

17 discretion on a change of use like this to

18 say I want a little bit more information on

19 the traffic. I don't think it's treating

20 the property owner differently for some

21 unreasonable purpose. I mean, they are

22 asking for the variance. I think if you

23 think traffic needs to be studied, then you

24 ask for it. And it sounds like he is going



1 to submit what he thinks is responsive to

2 that. So, as part of that there may be a

3 discussion by the proponent or a consultant

4 as to how they think they can address those

5 issues and we'll have to evaluate it when we

6 get it. We'll have our on staff or our

7 regular retained consultant take a look at

8 whatever they submit and give you a comment.

9 That's all we can do.

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. Is that

11 your last question?


13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any other comments

14 from the Board? Member Canup?

15 MEMBER CANUP: I think in our last

16 meeting I expressed some serious concerns

17 about the lack of parking. And since then

18 we have received the report on page two of

19 five the comparison Trade Centers,

20 Exposition Centers and it deals with

21 parking. If my math is somewhere near right

22 here according to this table that's in here

23 you are going to need somewhere in the area

24 of 3,504 sites. I didn't sit down and do it



1 precisely, but that's what it sounds like.

2 And the available sites it sounds like

3 you're somewhere between 900 and 950. And

4 give or take 50 when you've got that big of

5 a deficit it doesn't really matter. It's a

6 major problem and I think in our last

7 meeting I asked that that be addressed and I

8 haven't really seen much come back in a

9 positive manner from the Applicant.

10 And I think until we see something on

11 that and I don't mean just we're going to do

12 this or we're going to do that, I mean

13 something in writing. Something with a

14 lease hold. Something with a deed

15 restriction.

16 Another thing also, I worked on the

17 50s Festival when it held its festival there

18 at the Expo Center and we tried the busing,

19 it didn't work. We directed people over to

20 the site over at the office center, I don't

21 remember what it's called. We had signs.

22 We tried everything. It really didn't work.

23 We had continuous busses running around and

24 the bus uses was very little and the traffic



1 jams were horrendous coming into the center.

2 My opinion in this and unless they can

3 show adequate parking contiguous to the

4 site, I'm going to be very difficult to find

5 myself voting in favor of this. Off-site

6 parking does not solve the problem

7 permanently. And whatever we happen to do

8 here whether we approve it, it is going to

9 be with the City for some time to come.

10 It's not going to be a temporary couple

11 weekends a year like we were with the 50s

12 Festival. Had the festival had to put up

13 with it 52 weeks a year I probably -- that

14 did not work. And I saw it firsthand, it

15 didn't work and I would not endorse it. So

16 unless there is some way of coming up with

17 the required spaces or some formula to show

18 that there is enough spaces. Right now I

19 say they're about somewhere in the

20 neighborhood of 3,000 spaces short, which is

21 a humongous amount of parking.

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you, Member

23 Canup.

24 Well, I was hoping coming in this



1 evening that we would be able to look at

2 motions on the appeal and/or variance this

3 evening but in the discussions that we've

4 had all evening the City and staff or City

5 and attorney counsel are prepared to respond

6 to the information received last Friday.

7 We've asked both the Applicant and the City

8 quite a few additional questions for

9 information that we feel we need pertinent

10 to this case.

11 It looks to me like we're going to

12 have to have some type of continuance. But

13 I will leave it up to the Board if they want

14 to come forward with a motion or if we want

15 to continue to discuss the matter?

16 Member Fischer?


18 my opening remarks I think we threw out a

19 lot of questions. There is a lot of

20 questions that were asked that we have

21 certain criteria that we need to meet in

22 order to approve or deny and quite frankly

23 those answers have not been put forth in

24 front of us.



1 So, as stated, I would like to see

2 some type of final information deadline and

3 I would like your opinion on that? Like I

4 said, I want to get to the point where we

5 get the final information fax only from the

6 two sides because you guys can, you guys can

7 sit back and forth and debate the meaning of

8 a single word for years. So, how can we go

9 about getting some final facts in front of

10 us and making a decision moving forward for

11 the Applicant as well as for the City?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, in

13 terms of responding to what's been submitted

14 so far, it's not a long time, ten days, a

15 week or whatever. The only thing that I

16 think may need a little bit of cushion on is

17 the idea of getting Stout, Risius, Ross into

18 the building to take a look at the kinds of

19 things that were discussed today by Mr.

20 McCleary and Mr. Smith regarding the status

21 of the building.

22 I'm told by Mr. Tomlinson here by

23 shaking his head that he can get there

24 fairly quickly. I don't know how soon we



1 can generate some kind of report and react

2 to what it is they submit. So, if we can

3 have seven days they submit their materials

4 on that issue, I think we would be fine.

5 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: How much time would

6 the Applicant need? In other words, do we

7 want to move forward on this?

8 MR. SMITH: I understand you want to

9 move forward on it, but I understand you

10 also want to move forward on it with

11 information in enough time to digest that

12 information.


14 MR. SMITH: And Mr. Schultz wants that

15 information with more than a couple days,

16 that's why we adjourned in October because

17 what he thought was going to take a couple

18 of weeks ended up taking closer to four.

19 And that's not a shot, that's just an

20 explanation that it took longer to put it

21 all together and it took us longer to put

22 together our response than we thought. And

23 Tom and I talked about that and he said it

24 just took some time to gather all the



1 information.

2 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: While you're

3 discussing that, I think what we're looking

4 for is some type of time frame date wise

5 that would allow the Board time to review

6 everything prior to the December meeting.

7 If that can't be done, we may have to go to

8 a special meeting or even postpone until a

9 January meeting.

10 Yes, sir?

11 MR. SMITH: I think we need about

12 three weeks.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Three weeks would

14 -- do we have a calendar there? If they

15 need three weeks, how soon could we get the

16 information?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: That sort of rules out

18 the December meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: That's what I was

20 afraid of.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Because you would have a

22 week to review it and depending on what they

23 submit, you are going to want some kind of

24 reaction. I don't know whether you are



1 looking at the January 8th meeting or some

2 special meeting some time in December.

3 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Coming up with

4 another special meeting just prior to the

5 Holidays would be very difficult.

6 Member Canup?

7 MEMBER CANUP: Did I understand we are

8 going to have another traffic study or ask

9 for an updated traffic study?

10 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I didn't ask for

11 one specifically. Has anyone asked for one?

12 Ms. McBeth?

13 MS. McBETH: Through the Chair, I

14 think it's up to the Board whether the Board

15 would like to see a traffic study related to

16 this particular use. We could certainly ask

17 the Applicant to do that. We would be happy

18 to provide whatever additional information

19 we have collected over the years through the

20 various traffic studies that were done if

21 they would like to have a consultant get

22 started on that.

23 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess to followup on

24 that. You could impose that requirement on



1 them, but I think it's okay also to leave it

2 to them and they can decide whether or not

3 they think they have proved whatever the

4 traffic issues are. I'm a little reluctant

5 to require the traffic study, but the Board

6 has the ability to do that if that's what

7 you want to do.


9 MEMBER CANUP: Also my understanding

10 from your previous comments was that, maybe


11 it was Ms. McBeth, that the Planning

12 Commission would have jurisdiction over

13 off-site parking?

14 MS. McBETH: That's correct. The

15 Zoning Ordinance requires parking within on

16 site or within a certain distance of the

17 site. I think that they would need to

18 demonstrate where that parking was located.

19 You would have to take a look at that and

20 probably talk with Mr. Schultz about exactly

21 how the approvals would take place. But the

22 Planning Commission would get to take a look

23 at that as well.

24 MEMBER CANUP: Who should act first?



1 MR. SCHULTZ: Through the Chair, I

2 think that this Board should. I don't think

3 you want to get site plan ahead of the use

4 variance issue. I think what Ms. McBeth has

5 said is parking is relevant to whether or

6 not the use fits. Evaluating a site

7 plan-type analysis of where the parking is

8 is something that I think the staff can do

9 rather than the Planning Commission.

10 As a practical matter I think what Ms.

11 McBeth is saying is if you were to approve

12 the use variance and it were to be a

13 permitted use, there would be a planning

14 portion, a site planning portion where the

15 Planning Commission would have to sort of

16 actually approve it as a site plan issue.

17 The staff I think is capable of reviewing,

18 making a professional recommendation on

19 whatever it is they submit regarding

20 parking.

21 MEMBER CANUP: And the reason for

22 asking that question and getting

23 clarification is, we want to make sure that

24 we don't get a surprise at our next meeting



1 that this comes before us whether it be in

2 January or February or whatever that time

3 will be.


5 Applicant's feeling about January 8th, is

6 that too far down the road? Can we move

7 things up?

8 MR. ADELL: We can do April, May, it

9 doesn't matter. It's not going anywhere.

10 The end is I'll be there.

11 MR. SMITH: We're, of course, anxious

12 to get it underway. There is a huge demand

13 for this and everyday the property is

14 sitting fallow. On the other hand, we want

15 to make sure we fully address the Board's

16 questions and if January is the time, then

17 January is the time. I recognize by saying

18 we need three weeks that kind of pushes it

19 beyond December.

20 If you are looking for a traffic

21 study, even the January date would probably

22 be tough. I do a lot of this from your side

23 of the table. A traffic study is going to

24 take 90 to 120 days minimum.



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I don't think

2 anybody is specifically asking for that. If

3 you have information you want to provide

4 that's fine, but we're not going to require

5 a traffic study.

6 MR. SCHULTZ: So without the need for

7 the traffic study I think Mr. Fischer's

8 point is well taken, though, that the three

9 weeks that they need is essentially to close

10 the record and let the Board do its review

11 internally and be ready to presumably,

12 assuming they get all the questions

13 answered, make some kind of determination on

14 January 8th.


16 would also urge both Counsel for the City as

17 well as the Applicant to stick primarily to

18 the facts and not some of the other

19 information that I was unfortunately sadden

20 to see in some of these memorandums. I

21 think I would like to see sticking to the

22 questions that were asked today. With all

23 due respect to both of you, of course.

24 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Something else



1 while we're discussing things that I want to

2 make sure to ask for. We received obviously

3 the Affidavit from Ms. Secor from her

4 research and her study of what was being

5 marketed from the Expo. But I would like to

6 see some information received from the Expo

7 themselves. Quite often there is a

8 difference between reality and marketing or

9 advertising. It may match up identically,

10 but it may be some differences and I would

11 like to see some type of response. So if

12 the City could approach somebody with the

13 Expo and get information from them as well

14 prior to the next meeting for our packet, I

15 would appreciate it. So, do we have a

16 motion for tabling?

17 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if we're

18 going to delay until January, would it be

19 all right if I had four weeks? That would

20 give Mr. Schultz still three weeks beyond

21 that to respond prior to your meeting?

22 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I don't see any --

23 MR. SMITH: Does that work for you,

24 Mr. Schultz?



1 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Let's select a

2 date. I don't want to just say four weeks.

3 Select a date. If we have a calendar in

4 front of us.


6 Smith is looking up a date four weeks from

7 today.

8 MR. SMITH: That would be December 3.

9 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, that would

10 work. December 3 and then we will -- I'll

11 entertain a motion to have that included in

12 the motion and have it tabled until the

13 January 8th meeting. If somebody cares to

14 make a motion.


16 ahead and move that we table Case number:

17 07-059 for the purpose of obtaining

18 additional factual information as requested

19 by the Board giving the Applicant's Counsel

20 until December 3rd, to submit their

21 documentation and requested information to

22 the City on that date.

23 MEMBER BAUER: Second.




1 postpone this case to the January 8th, 2008

2 meeting.

3 MR. SMITH: That's Tuesday, January

4 8th?

5 MS. WORKING: That's correct.

6 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: We have a motion

7 and a second. I'll open it up for further

8 discussion.

9 One other comment I want to make is

10 that I would like our counsel, City counsel

11 to prepare a, I would say a motion for both

12 sides, an approval and denial for the appeal

13 as well as the variance that the Board could

14 look at for consideration of usage or

15 modification.

16 And if Mr. Smith would care to make

17 the same, he is welcomed to do so and

18 present it as part of the packet.

19 MR. SMITH: Is it all right if I just

20 do the motions for approval?

21 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: I don't know why

22 you would only do that one? Absolutely, you

23 may.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: So, as I understand it



1 you want for the January 8th meeting motions

2 from our perspective going both ways?


4 MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Smith will submit

5 what he submits?


7 MR. SCHULTZ: They've got four weeks

8 and we get some response time after that.

9 We will get in what we can regarding the

10 Friday's submission as soon possible and

11 then hopefully it won't be that much

12 response to what Mr. Smith submitted.

13 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: In the interim if

14 there any information that can be forwarded

15 that we could review, that would always be

16 helpful as opposed to getting a stack at the

17 end and then trying to cram for several days

18 or several weeks, we would appreciate that.

19 MR. SMITH: Sure.

20 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Any further

21 discussion? Member Bauer?

22 MEMBER BAUER: I don't see where we've

23 got an amount of actual number of vehicles

24 parking for the square footage that we have.



1 Have you put that through yet?

2 MS. McBETH: Through the Chair. We

3 did have some numbers related to the parking

4 standards. We can provide something more

5 explicit for you if you WOULD like for the

6 next round.

7 MEMBER BAUER: Well, I'm looking at

8 these, the Expo, the Gibraltar Trade Center

9 4,000 spaces, 300,000 square feet. Mount

10 Clemens, the same. All of them are well

11 over 2,000. I am wondering is that is a

12 requirement that these individual cities

13 have demanded or is it what they just have?

14 MS. McBETH: And again, through the

15 Chair. This is what we have looked at for

16 what they currently have. We didn't look

17 into necessarily what the requirements were.

18 There was additional chart that was provided

19 that did talk about the size of the

20 buildings and the districts that they were

21 permitted in.

22 I believe that we did not have the

23 parking standards for each community, but we

24 did provide the average number of spaces



1 provided overall for each of those

2 facilities that was evaluated. We thought

3 that information might be hopeful to the

4 Board.

5 MEMBER BAUER: Yes, it would. Thank

6 you.

7 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

8 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Thank you. We have

9 motion on the floor. It was a motion by

10 Member Fischer and seconded by Member Bauer.

11 Robin, would you please call the roll.

12 MS. WORKING: Member Fischer?


14 MS. WORKING: Member Bauer?


16 MS. WORKING: Member Sanghvi?


18 MS. WORKING: Chairman Shroyer?


20 MS. WORKING: Member Krieger?


22 MS. WORKING: Member Canup?


24 MS. WORKING: Motion to table to the



1 January 8th meeting with materials submitted

2 for a deadline of December 3rd passes 6-0.


4 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

5 Thank you Board members.


7 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: Okay, moving on.

8 The next item on the agenda is other

9 matters. Is there any other matters to

10 discuss this evening?

11 MS. WORKING: Not this evening, Mr.

12 Chair.


14 adjourn.


16 CHAIRMAN SHROYER: All in favor say

17 aye?



20 adjourned.

21 (The meeting was adjourned at

22 9:15 p.m.)





1 C E R T I F I C A T E



4 I, Mona L. Talton, do hereby certify

5 that I have recorded stenographically the

6 proceedings had and testimony taken in the

7 above-entitled matter at the time and place

8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further

9 certify that the foregoing transcript,

10 consisting of (87) typewritten pages, is a

11 true and correct transcript of my said

12 stenographic notes.






18 _____________________________

19 Mona L. Talton,

20 Certified Shorthand Reporter


22 November 9, 2007